278 Charles C. Tonry, 



pretation is added: [xavT], (pape?, OsxlX. esTt os rj epiXTjvsia auroiv [xaviq, 

 7jpi6|XT)Tai • <pap£?, I^^pxaf OexeX, eaxaxat. And in vs. 17, which belongs 

 to another (also much abridged) recension of the Aramaic text, we 

 see the reading again confirmed, though this time only the interpretation 

 is given : rjpt'GfXYixat, xaxeXoYtuOir), e^^pxat, the words standing once more 

 in the usual order. As we have already seen, there were various 

 recensions current even in the middle of the second century B.C. The 

 testimony of Josephus is of unusual importance here, for the recension 

 which he follows is altogether distinct from those represented in the old 

 Greek which we have. It is plain from his account of the event {Antt. 

 X, 232—247) that the text before him — whether Greek or Aramaic — agreed 

 pretty closely with our own massoretic recension ; see for instance 

 §§ 241 and 242. He gives the words of the inscription as [xavY^, 6exeX, 

 cpapec, and interprets them as nouns, meaning respectively dpiGpLo'c, cjxa6fi.os, 

 and xXauixa. In view of the perfect coincidence of this varied testimony, 

 and the very unusual nature of the case (the importance of the divine 

 oracle making exact transcription obviously necessary), there can be no 

 question whatever that in all of these (five) distinct texts, dating all the 

 way from the second century B.C. to the second century A.D., the 

 reading of the inscription in vs. 25 was just the same ; the word mene 

 was not repeated, and the reading uparsln (instead of peres) was quite 

 unknown. 



But this is not all. Our own massoretic text bears plain witness to 

 the correctness of the reading attested by all the others. If the finger 

 of God wrote pD^SI (vs. 25), by what right is this altered, without any 

 explanation, into the quite different word DIS; in vs. 28 ? And whence 

 can this D*lD have come ? The case is so clear, and the explanation 

 so certain, that there is hardly need of argument. The T'^DISI? uparsln, 

 of our massoretic text was originally a marginal gloss (whence the "), as 

 in so many similar cases). The reason why it was inserted in the text 

 was the ever-working and praiseworthy motive, iva [xtq xi aTr6Xr)xat, which 

 has preserved for us so many valuable things, and often made us so 

 much trouble, in the tradition of the Old Testament text. It could have 

 been argued in this case, of course, that nothing was tost through the 

 insertion, since the reading D1D> peres, was preserved in vs. 28.' The 

 gloss parsln had its origin, of course, in some one's innocent attempt 

 at interpretation. As for the repetition of the word '^'^t^, mene, that is 

 due to one of the easiest and most common of all transcriptional errors. 



' Compate, for example, what was said above regarding the pointing of 



